floridamtb

It would be easier and cheaper and more efficient all around if the rider would just lose 3-5 pounds and ride the less expensive bike

Dagamon

Ah! Obviously we need a randomized experiment here. Let's buy random BF members Pinarellos, and track their mileage over the next 3 years.

rpenmanparker 

In your universe are you not allowed to do both? No matter how much body weight you lose, the weight that can still come off the bike will still be there. As will the fun of riding a super light bike. No amount of dieting can do anything to cancel those two things out.

colnago62

Not all races have climbing that requires the rider to be a stick man. Most of the amateur racing around here gives the advantage to an all around rider; a guy who can climb pretty well, motor, and sprint. In this neck of the woods you can race a criterium and the velodrome several times a week all season long.

I think people here are looking at the issue incorrectly. A high end racing bike might not give you faster solo ride times, but if it keeps you from getting dropped out of a group ride, you will definitely see an improvement of tour ride time.

Shuffleman

Come on. Rolex=Cadillac. Really? You would compare Rolex to a GM product? Shame on you. I am not a fan of the Rolex but I do recognize the status that its Brand occupies and I would not put it down there with any GM product. I may put it there with Land Rover, which is not reliable buy quite attractive and holds a level of status similar to Rolex. You don't buy a Land Rover for its reliability though

floridamtb

True... but I got better things to do with that extra money, like daughter's medical school etc. A $2500 bike is fine for me and my brutal climbs up 75' tall drawbridges in south Florida. Like one person said there is a point of diminishing return

Fly2High

Don't forget to hope she buys you a thank you gift for sending her through med school with a $10,000 bike!!

If not, guilt might work....

congratulations on the doctor in the family. If she can help save you on medical expenses, that alone could cover a very nice bike!

Nachoman

You mean I don't have to purchase what some anonymous internet yahoo believes is best for me?

Nachoman

D1andonlyDman

My point is, Rolex is mass-market luxury, aspirational for those not used to genuine luxury, but not true exclusive luxury. I wasn't referring to anything about reliability - just that it's nowhere near as upscale as other timepiece brands that really are upscale and exclusive. Land Rover might actually be less reliable, but it's certainly more of an exclusive Marque than Rolex. Would you prefer Lincoln as a better analogy to Rolex?

rpenmanparker 

Don't put words in my mouth!

rpenmanparker 

Totally different consideration and perfectly valid. I would do the same as you. Heck, I did do the same as you when I was in a similar situation. But that should be the reason, not the mistaken notion the weight reduction wouldn't be either justified or beneficial.

sam_cyclist

Many of the riders in those races are sponsored.

And of the people who buy expensive bikes, few are racing.

What does that leave? Ego. Status. Pride of ownership. That's fine.

A few people buy porsches and race them. The vast majority don't.

sam_cyclist

You seem to lack anything meaningful to say.

And projecting.

Bandera

Never lose sight of the fact that although the top-tier machines are available to the general cycling public they are tools for professional bike racers.
To fully appreciate the incremental performance improvement between a $2K and $10K race bike requires considerable cycling experience, and in particular racing experience.



A professional quality chef's knife is of little added value to one who doesn't have the knife skills and the technique required to maintain a performance cutting edge and efficiently/safely use the tool. One can say: "Gee, that's Sharp!" but producing piles of properly diced mirepoix and like-sized julienne takes commitment to technique, practice and kitchen time. Any tool performs as well as it's user's skills permit and great tools help the most skilled perform at the highest level.

Likewise a top-tier race bike can be appreciated as a fine quality machine in it's own right: "Gee, that's Light!" and operated by anyone w/ the cash to acquire it.
They are certainly a real pleasure to ride/own/enjoy.
The performance edge comes in the environment it was designed for: shoulder to shoulder in a tight peloton on pave', in a desperate >40mph sprint and at redline effort on brutal climbs.

Cyclists have a unique relationship w/ their machines being their motive power, ride what you like and better yet what you love.

-Bandera

sam_cyclist

Get in better shape. Lose 3-5 lbs. Problem solved.

But most people here aren't interested in that. They want to defend spending an extra $4K to $10K. It's obvious why. They want a nicer bike. No problem with that.

But no need to deny this simple fact with: "I do so much pack riding I need an extra .00001 seconds from my bike."

sam_cyclist

This is my point exactly. Forum members here want more expensive bikes because they are more prestigious. There is no performance gain. There is a perceived psychological/emotional gain.

sam_cyclist

Of course. As long as they don't attempt to argue, as many here are doing, that the bike somehow offers a performance advantage. It doesn't.

bruce19

This is always true for me. And, so easily overlooked by many.

bruce19

I think I'm going to pour a Bushmill's, grab a cigar and go out to the garage. Then I'm going to go visit my AL Masi Gran Criterium and Guru steel and say, "You guys are still OK with me." Oh, and "Thanks for the rides."

wphamilton

Speaking hypothetically, if I have 10% body fat it's not that easy to lose another 3% at my age, and the other guys are already there plus having 5 pound lighter bikes.

Have you ever had a bike ride with a lot of strong surges? It might not be as easy as you think, certainly not as easy as that last sentence would imply.

I'm not going to spend 4K let alone 10K, but that doesn't mean every reason people give for it is unreasonable.

rpenmanparker 

We're not talking about magnitude here, just some effect, no matter how minuscule. You sound awfully sure for someone who has no objective data. Not woulda, shoulda, coulda, you know all the back-of-the-envelope calculations that prove it can't be. I mean test data. Anecdotes don't count. Personally I don't know the answer. I just know riding a lighter bike feels way sweeter to me than riding a heavier one. Oh wait, that's an anecdote. But see, I'm just talking about my experience, not trying to convince anyone how they will feel about it.

rpenmanparker 

See you are way more sure about that than your lack of objective data entitles you to be.

Elvo

But there is a performance gain with reducing weight or drag.

sam_cyclist

Yeah, I think it's safe to say that very few if any forum members are at 10% body fat.

I've done a lot of pack riding with very fit riders (college age, college team). I kept up very well and was faster than many, if not most of them.

I didn't say EVERY reason is unreasonable. I simply stated there is no performance advantage that matters.